Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 95

Hebrews 1:5-9, "For unto which of the angels said he, in former times, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? And, again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he says, Let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels, he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire? But to the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

The errors of the author of this epistle are as many as the quotations with which he strives to confirm his views. The connexion established between Jesus and the seventh verse of Psalm 2, "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee," we have already presented in a proper light in our remarks on Acts 8:33. We have there fully proved that David applied those elevated words to himself. Hence Christians are not justified in deducing from it doctrinal points. The promise made in 2 Samuel 7:14, "I shall be unto him as a father, and he shall be to me as a son," was made regarding Solomon, the son of David. The Christians themselves would not like to refer these words to Jesus, since the prophecy contains the prediction, "Whom, if he commit iniquity, I shall chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men." As to Jesus, it is well known that his worshippers are impressed with the conviction that he never committed any sin.

The author of the Epistle pretends to discover in our Scripture, that the angels of God were bound to worship Jesus. We find, in Psalm 97:7, "All ye gods worship him," viz., that God who is spoken of as the Lord of the whole earth. The words, "Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever," are wrongly quoted from Psalm 45:6. We read there Kis-au-hau Elohim, which means, "Thy throne (is) of God, "and not "Thy throne, O God." Thus we find, in 1 Chronicles 29:23, "And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord." The Lord being the acknowledged king of Israel, the throne occupied by David and his posterity was described as the throne of the Lord. This throne is to be occupied by the descendants of David for time everlasting. Thus Daniel prophesies, in chapter 2:44, "The God of heaven will establish a throne which shall not be destroyed throughout eternity."

To be convinced that our interpretation is correct, let the reader merely refer to the continuation of the words of Psalm 45:7, "Thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity; therefore hath God, even thy God, anointed thee." If Jesus is God, could the Psalmist address him with such words as thy God?

To answer Troki's last question, yes. Every time you argue from the assumption that God cannot have an I-Thou relationship within himself, you beg the question. Remember, one mind with multiple centers of self-consciousness. It makes the verse easy to understand. I cannot see how to interpret it on unitarian monotheism without simply stretching the text to fit a preconceived belief.

Troki's translation is also more of an interpretation. There is no motivation to translate the Hebrew (אֱלֹהִים אֱלֹהֶיךָ) as anything other than God, your God. The Greek also read as (ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου) God, your God.

Regarding Psalm 2, it is a coronation psalm, addressed not just to David, but to every future king of Israel. The rabbis have accepted this and often applied it to King Messiah, including Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Midrash Tehillim, and the Babylonian Talmud among others. Troki also misunderstands 2 Samuel 7:14. It is also a coronation psalm, aimed at all the kings of Israel, as David Kimchi notes. It doesn't follow that every king is going to be disobedient and need to be chastised. It means that if the king should go astray, God's wrath will be laid upon him. Trypho the Jew, in his dialogue against Justin Martyr, mentions this passage as a proof that Messiah will be a descendant of David.

Besides, the statement "if Jesus sins, the Father will chastise him" holds true, as does any if-then statement with a false or impossible "if" statement. If Maimonides was a Christian, then I am the Pope.

For Psalm, 45:6 it reads (כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים) meaning "Your throne God." There is no construct chain, so the text does not mean "the throne of God." In fact, the ךָ ending means that it's "YOUR throne." 1 Chronicles uses the term (כִּסֵּא יְהוָה) which is just "throne God." Obviously it is going to be translated as "throne of God" since God is not being addressed in the passage. The narrator is simply telling the reader what is going on. The Septuagint translator translated it as (ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός) meaning the throne of you the God. The term "God" is not in the genitive, meaning that the Septuagint translator did not translate it as it as "throne of God" (ὁ θρόνος θεου).

The rabbis, of course, translate it as "your throne is of God" because they know that the king is being addressed, and refuse to believe that the king can be God in the flesh. Their motivation for such a translation is theological, not philological.